November 21st, 2009
 

365 Gay: News

Idaho same-sex couple denied family admission rate


(Idaho) A same-sex couple were denied the discount family admission rate to a pool because the family does not fit Idaho’s definition of a family.

Amber Koger and Jeri Underwood and their three children were not allowed to receive the discount because the state does not accept same-sex marriage and defines a family as between one man, one woman and children.

Mark Lowe, executive director for the Lava Hot Springs State Foundation, said that as a state institution, Idaho law must be followed, meaning the family would not be permitted to receive the family discount.

Read the full KTVB story here.


Login or Register to comment.

or Login with Facebook:

  • Guy in SF Said: June 10th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
    • Yes, but this isn’t a private company. Lava Hot Springs is owned by the State of Idaho. The State should not be allowed to selectively serve those citizens who fit the definition of the Parks & Recreation Manager as a family.

  • LOrion Said: June 10th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
    • Hope no one supportive goes to that pool all summer!

  • Eddie89 Said: June 10th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
    • I hope this couple and the ACLU sue the chlorine out of them!!!

  • Roger Ramjett Said: June 10th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
    • Here is the FAMILY DISCOUNT PLAN from Lava’s own website:

      FAMILY DISCOUNT PASS POLICY
      Intent: The family discount is intended to help families afford the day out at a swimming pool or
      hot pool facility that they may not otherwise be able to afford. It is also intended to increase
      attendance at the facilities midweek when business is typically slower. Therefore, the discount is
      available Monday-Thursday except major holidays – New Years Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of
      July and Labor Day.
      Eligibility: In order to be as consistent as possible, families that are eligible for the discount are
      considered to be parents and children. The children must be dependant children of the parent, or
      parents, present at the time of entry, and under the age of 18. For the purpose of this discount,
      parent is defined as the person who has long-term legal responsibility for the dependant children.
      Discussion: The children need not be biological offspring of the legally responsible adult(s).
      Adopted children and foster children are considered part of the family so long as the stipulations
      listed above are met. Parents are defined as those adults who are either legally obligated to the
      care of the dependant children or are married to the adult who is the parent of the dependant
      children. Single parents and their children are eligible for the discount. Adults who are raising
      their siblings are eligible for the discount.

      Now where exactly does it say a family is defined by ‘Stae Laws and Definitions’???

      It doesn’t. In fact, it simply states an adult who has the legal responsibilty for the child/children is elligible for the discount.

      That would include the two ladies who were denied the discount.

      Chalk one up for Homophobic A-Holes again, huh?

  • JP Said: June 10th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
    • Um… it’s Idaho… are we surprised? Bran-dead redneck assholes.

  • annwsc1 Said: June 10th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
    • That argument is a crock. I live in very homophobic South Carolina and my partner and I have a family membership to the local “Y”. They were smart. They have household memberships of 2, 3, 4, or 5 people. So, you could have adult children or other adult members of the household with the discount.

  • Gerry Fisher Said: June 10th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
    • I love their creativity. I’m pretty sure that state law says nothing about what a private institution can do regarding how it charges its customers. Nice try!

  • gew Said: June 10th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
    • I agree that in a situation such as this, a company can choose to extend family rates to gay or lesbian couples with no real dire consequences.

      To choose not to, is just upholding their own prejudices and bigotry.

  • gew Said: June 10th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
    • I agree that in a matter like this, a can company choose to extend family rates to gays or lesbian couples with no dire consequences.

      To choose not to, is just upholding their own prejudices and bigotry.

  • Ryan Said: June 10th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
    • “defines a family as between one man, one woman and children.”

      So according to their own definition, a single parent household is not eligible for the family discount. Wonder if that actually holds true, but I doubt it.

  • Mark Said: June 10th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
    • On the flip side, my partner and I and our niece we approved at two different gym facilites in Florida for family memebership.

      That state law line is bullshit. Companies can do what they want to be competitive-the state does not set the standard of how they apply their memebership rules.

      Boycott organizations that reject us, support those that don’t. Very simple.

  • bb Said: June 10th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
    • I don’t know about the rest, but I wouldn’t expect anything less from this State?

  • Matty Said: June 10th, 2009 at 11:49 am
    • Thanks for taking one for the team! These kinds of stories plead the case for us. It’s sad that our families have to go through this kind of discrimination in this day and age.

  • Steve of Washington Said: June 10th, 2009 at 11:46 am
    • That is why I moved from Idaho to Washington state in 2007, because I got denied a discount on food, club and gym memberships – because of the same exact reason back in 2005!!!!!!

  • Kate Said: June 10th, 2009 at 11:45 am
    • The exact same thing happened to us in Greenville, NC. My partner and I went to join the local pool and asked for the family rate….we were told that because we weren’t married, we couldn’t have the family rate but were welcome to buy two individual memberships. That was about a year before we immigrated to Canada.

 
Login

Register
Lost your password?


or Login with Facebook